2021 QCCA 1232, 2021 QCCA 1232

Succession de Moore c. Leblanc 2021 QCCA 1232 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029582-210 ( 755-22-008724-133 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: August 5, 2021 THE HONOURABLE FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. APPELLANTS COUNSEL THE STATE OF THE LATE ALBERT EDWARD MOORE JR. EDWARD MOORE DESIGN INC.

Mtre MURIEL LIBRATI ( Teitelbaum Librati ) By videoconference RESPONDENTS COUNSEL ÉMILIE LEBLANC ANTONY MONTANA VERONIQUE LEBLANC PETER MILLER MARCEL LEBLANC SERGE AUBE LUC BENOIT REAL BOULANGER GUY ST-PIERRE GILLES BOUCHER LOUIS ROBITAILLE FIDUCIE CHRY-CA ANDRÉ BRUNEAU KARL LALIBERTÉ STEPHANE FORTIN ACCOMODATION 10-10 MP INC. PATIO VIDAL FRANCHISEUR INC. 9176-0579 QUEBEC INC. Mtre JACQUES ST-LOUIS ( St-Louis, Champoux, avocats ) By videoconference IMPLEADED PARTY

9196-5822 QUÉBEC INC. ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on June 8, 2021 by the Honourable Daniel Lévesque of the Court of Québec , District of Iberville (Article 31 C.C.P. ). Clerk at the hearing : Paola Garcia Rosario Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:32 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 9:33 Submissions by Mtre Librati. 9:43 Discussion between the Court and Mtre Librati. 9:51 Submissions by Mtre St-Louis. 10:01 Reply by Mtre Librati. 10:03 Reply by Mtre St-Louis. 10:04 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 4.

Conclusion of the hearing. Paola Garcia Rosario, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicants seek leave to appeal from a judgment authorizing amendments that the respondents made to their originating application in December 2019 and that were further particularized in January and May 2021. [1] The applicants essentially argue that the judge misapplied the criteria set out in

article 206 C.C.P. and that his judgment compromises the principle of proportionality while being contrary to the interests of justice. [ 2 ] It is well established that, as a general rule, judgments authorizing amendments cannot be appealed because they neither determine part of the dispute nor cause irremediable injury to opposing parties within the meaning of

article 31, 2 nd para. C.C.P. [2] I see no reason to depart from that rule in the present matter. [ 3 ] Furthermore, even assuming that the judgment was subject to appeal, I would not have granted leave.

The judge — who was particularly well placed to appreciate the matter, having been assigned as special case management judge in this file — found that the impugned amendments merely made explicit a claim that was implicit in the respondents’ earlier pleadings, and the applicants have not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that they would convince a panel of the Court that this finding was vitiated by a palpable and overriding error.

Nor do I see any basis upon which the Court could conclude that the judge manifestly erred in finding that the amendments would not significantly delay the proceeding and were not contrary to the interests of justice. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 4 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, with costs.

FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.